国外多元化和专业化策略与公司绩效外文翻译.doc

国外多元化和专业化策略与公司绩效外文翻译 外文翻译Foreign diversification vs concentration strategies and firm performance MaterialSource:/0./0265-1335.htm Author:Francisco Firstly, the lack of consensus on the relationship foreign concentration/diversificatinperformance has been explained through the existence of operational problems in performance measurement. Empirical literature uses many different ways to measure performance, and the use of a multi-dimensional construct is perhaps the most appropriate Katsikeas,2000. Accordingly, our study simultaneously applies two different referents to compare foreign performance from several angles: accounting rate and a market evaluation measure.These measures, although interrelated, reflect different aspects of performance,with their respective advantages and limitations Ross,1983;Keats,1988. The limitations of each measureaccounting and market measures can be solved through their joint use Ross, 1983. Secondly, literature has mainly examined the impact of concentration/diversificationstrategies on firm performance in the context of export market expansion Attiyeh and Wenner, 1981; Lee and Yang, 1990; Piercy, 1981a. Alternatively, our paper is focused on exports and foreign direct investment FDI. This is explained as follows: The use of marketing efforts is independent of the instrument of expansion FDI or exports. In principle, in the way that concentration/diversification strategies stress the gradual/rapid expansion of a firm and marketing efforts allocated to new markets, these strategies concentration vs diversification seem to imply different levels of marketing efforts and different instruments in each market. In fact, given fixed resources, those assigned to each market in a diversification strategy are less than in a concentration strategyA low level of marketing efforts in a diversification strategy would imply less sales promotion, a greater tendency to use independent agents exports and skimming price initially high prices descending later; whereas a concentration strategy would imply investments in market share, which include large promotional costs, and greater control over distribution channels FDI and penetration prices low from the start.However, in the real world, these marketing instruments do not always follow the above description of allocation of marketing efforts, as a firm could invest identical resources in two markets with two different strategies e.g. exports with independent agents and strong promotion in one market and direct investment in a sales subsidiary with low promotion in another market, so that the allocation of marketing efforts can be a more precise analysis measure than expansion instruments Ayal and Zif, 1979.This line of thought, therefore, proposes the use of marketing efforts independently of the instrument of expansion FDI or exports. In order to solve operational problems around performance measurement, we use different referents simultaneously: accounting rate and stock market evaluation measure. This allows the limitations of each measure to be solved through their joint use; and thus, we use a multi-dimensional construct of performance which has been suggested by literature. The empirical analysis through the application of “event-study” on a sample of 75 expansion announcements between 1992 and 1996 from 36 Spanish quoted firms finds significant positive returns on the day after the event announcement in addition to accumulated returns over three days, which suggests that, on average, the stock market reacts positively to foreign expansion announcements. This has allowed measurement of the stock market results of foreign expansion. Likewise, the application of ANOVA and MRA shows that firm performance accounting and stock market does not depend directly on the strategies of foreign concentration vs diversification; but on the interaction between concentration/diversification strategies and some market and product factors. In particular, accounting rate of ROS is determined by the interaction between concentration/diversification and the NRP nature of the product, whereas stock market excess returns are affected by the interaction between concentration/diversification and CU and the D channel. Thus, the joint use of these measures accounting and stock market returns results in more complete information being obtained. Our conclusions are that whilst accounting results could not capture the moderator effect of D because these investments are not immediately profitable, we can observe an effect when the relationship is analysed by way of expected results of stock market measures. Thus, for Spanish firms foreign expansion strategies imply important investment distribution and growth prospects that are not reflected in current performance, although this strategy will allow the future performance of these firms to improve Ramrez and Espitia, 2001. Additionally, CU is positively associated, in a diversification context, with expected stock market results as these expectations take into account the risk implicit in countries with greater CU. Finally, accounting returns capture the moderating effect of the NRP character of the product, an aspect which is not collected by stock market results. The main implications of these results of managers and other olicy-makers are: first, decision makers in firms that expand abroad should not be concerned with foreign concentration/diversification strategies perse in order to improve results, but with the interaction of the concentration/diversification decision with the characteristics of the market, product and firm. In other words, neither the temporal element of the expansion and marketing efforts assigned to the foreign markets charaterristics of the concentration/diversification strategy, nor transnational network structure deep vs wide implicit in concentration vs diversification of our paper based on FDI, can uniquely explain firm performance. However, they are important in the context of the market, product and firm of the foreign expansion when explaining firm results. Second, essentially managers must realise that two markets factors, CU and D channel, along with a product factor NRP, play an important role in the choice of a concentration vs diversification strategy when explaining business results; factors that should be assessed at the individual firm level. results; factors that should be assessed at the individual firm level. An own distribution channel seems to be critical for firms that choose a foreigndiversification strategy, as firm stock market results are reduced. A strategy of rapid expansion in a large number of markets through costly own channels requently increases distribution costs as a result of necessary investment. Consequently, investors do not favour such firms, which reduce their potential value. Moreover, the lack of evidence on its effect on accounting results due to the fact that it is not an immediately profitable investment implies that it is essential that managers pay sufficient attention to the distribution systems of the overseas markets targeted in order to imize concentration/diversification strategy outcomes for the shareholder. Large CU between the home country and the different host-countries, referred to in the literature Ayal and Zif, 1979; Piercy, 1981b, seems to be more relevant for firms choosing foreign diversification, as it allows them to attain better stock market results. Large CU is an indicator of a high-risk level for the firm and concentration in such markets would be very risky for the firm. It is essential to operate a sensible diversification policy which spreads the risk over these unstable markets and improves shareholdersexpectations. Although the global F of the accounting results equation is not significant and cannot be used tomake conclusions, the negative sign of C/D*CU is revealing. This means that CU in the context of foreign diversification generates lower accounting returns, but leads to better stock market results. In this type of paradoxical situation, CU becomes a critical variable for firm managers, as they are simultaneously faced with contexts in which entry into culturally distant markets is seen by investors as positive or as an economically viable investment for diversified firms, but for which there is also empirical evidence of negative impacts on accounting results. These types of situation have important implications which are explained by Farrell and Frame 1997 through the agency costs theory, in the sense that decision makers could make own benefit investments supporting more visible decisions that improve shareholdersexpectations as opposed to firm accounting benefits to be obtain over subsequent years. Finally, a repeat purchase product appears to be interesting for firms choosing a foreign concentration strategy, as it increases accounting results. Moreover, the lack of evidence on its effect on stock market results implies that managers should pay attention to repeat purchase character of the product in order to imize the concentration/diversification strategy accounting outcomes for the firm.译文国外多元化和专业化策略与公司绩效节选 资料来源:/./0265-1335.htm 作者:弗朗西斯科 从国际市场营销的角度来看,公司需要进行对外扩张,从公司长远角度来说,公司的决策取决于该公司对外扩张的时间和它在国外市场的营销程度。这使得文献能够区分这两种对外扩张策略(Ayal and ZIF,1979年):(1)在一些关键市场集中进行营销工作并随着时间的推移逐渐扩大到新市场。(2)在大型市场进行快速多元化,并分配营销工作。两种战略都对绩效有影响,虽然这里没有理论或实证上的共识他们中哪个会产生更好的绩效(Lee and Yang,1990)。我们的论文对现有文献在不同研究方式上有所贡献。 首先,对专业化和多元化与绩效的关系缺乏共识,这已经通过绩效评估中存在的操作问题作出解释。许多实证文献使用不同的方法来衡量绩效,使用多维结构或许是最合适的(Katsikeas等2000)。因此,我们的研究同时应用了两种指标从不同角度来衡量绩效:会计收益率和市场评估方法。这些方法,虽然相互联系,反映了各个方面的效益,但它们也有各自的优点和缺陷(Ross,1983; Keats,1988)。通过他们的联合使用可以解决不同方法的局限性(会计方法和市场方法)。 其次,文章主要研究企业向出口市场扩张(Attiyeh and Wenner,1981;Lee and Yang,1990;Piercy,1981a)的背景下企业专业化与多样化战略对企业绩效的影响。另外,我们论文的关注点在出口和国外直接投资(FDI)。这里的解释如下: 原则上,这种专业化和多元化的战略强调公司的逐步和快速扩张行为和新市场的营销部署,这些战略(专业化和多样化)似乎暗示了每个市场不同程度的营销水平和方法。事实上,鉴于有限的固定资源,这些的安排方式对于一个进行多元化策略的市场来说它产生的效益要少于专业化所产生的效益。在多元化战略中低程度的营销水平将意味着减少销售,使企业更倾向于使用独立代理人(出口)和撇脂定价法(在最初将价格定高然后不断下降);然而一个专业化战略将意味着企业在市场份额方面做更大的投资,这其中包括大量的推广成本,对于销售渠道有更好的控制(FDI)和渗透价格(从一开始就将价格定低)。然而,在现实世界中,这些营销手段并不总是按照上面的描述一样来制定,因为一个公司可以投放相同的产品在两个不同的市场使用两种不同的策略,(例如:在一个市场使用独立代理人和强力且有效的促销方式,而在另一个低销售水平的市场则采用直接投资的方法),这样使营销策略的制定相比扩张手段是一种更为精确的衡量方法(Ayal and ZIF,1979)。因此,我们更建议企业使用独立的营销扩张手段(外国直接投资或出口)。一般来说,多元化和公司绩效之间的关系呈正相关当它有一个分散化网络的时候(包括在许多国家的子公司)和负相关关系当它有一个集中型网络(在每个国家中有很多分支)(Allen and Pantzalis, 1996;Pantzalis,2001)理由是多元化需要加强公司的管理系统,这会导致代理成本的增加。在有国际化和分散式网络的情况下,在这种网络中利润增加并且业务的灵活性将会带来一系列的好处(能实现海外市场之间的套利过程 - 组合实物期权 - 通过国家之间以上网络市场内部化), 它能使企业克服在国际化经营管理监督中的所需承担的代理成本。相反地,集中化网络将使收益减少,因为它们意味着过多的实物期权组合(每个国家中的多个子公司)在这里找不到操作灵活性,也没有对跨国网络管理导致的代理费用给予赔偿。 为了解决围绕衡量企业经营绩效的实际操作问题,我们同时使用不同的指标:会计收益率和股票价值的方法。这样使得能通过他们的联合使用从而解决不同方法的局限性;因此,我们使用文献建议的多维结构绩效模型。 实证研究通过在1992年至1996年期间宣布扩张的36个西班牙公司的75份扩张报告样本进行“事件-研究”分析,这些公司在宣布扩张一天后都获得了明显的利润回报而不是三天内的累积利润回报,这表明,从平均情况来说股市对企业宣布对外扩张反应积极。这使得能够衡量企业对外扩张时从股市获得的收益,同样,应用方差分析和MRA表明公司业绩(会计和股票市场)并不直接依赖于企业的专业化和多元化策略;但与专业化和多元化战略之间的相互影响和一些市场和产品因素相关。特别是,会计收益率取决于专业化和多元化之间的内在影响和产品的性质,而股市的超额收益会受到来自